3 ms·
Guys, nobody is going to make any money on the moon anytime soon. Or by mining asteroids, either, although that argument is more interesting, since (some) aster
by GlenTheMachine 9y ago
Guys, nobody is going to make any money on the moon anytime soon. Or by mining asteroids, either, although that argument is more interesting, since (some) asteroids contain relatively pure rare elements. The moon, by contrast, is mostly just sand.
With current technology, it costs — round ballpark figures — about $25,000 PER KILOGRAM to launch mass into geosynchronous orbit, the highest orbit for which there is any current commercial launch market. If SpaceX really gets going, which it might, that number will come down. But it won't come exponentially down. It might get cut in half. But it's still going to be really really expensive to get aything to the moon, including the infrastucture and propellant that you would need in order to get things back from the moon. Put another way, that's about $800 an ounce at current prices, and $400 an ounce in the optimistic ten year scenario. Bricks launched into space are literally as expensive as gold bars.
And that's just launch cost. It isn't the cost of building the thing you're launching. Of course, the non-recurring engineering, fabrication, and test costs vary dramatically depending on the complexity of the spacecraft being built, but again, in very general terms, a geosynchronous communications satellite, which is the single spacecraft type that most closely resembles a commodity, as they are built on an assembly line, with relatively little non-recurring engineering and standardized designs and parts, those cost about $300 million each.
For a grand total cost, of building and launching a plain vanilla geo commsat, of half a billion dollars. And then you have to operate the thing. Any spacecraft mission of significant complexity - the complexity associated with manned spaceflight or planetary mining - is going to require round the clock teams of hundreds of engineers. So you're talking billions more dollars per year to operate.
If you're thinking of launching a man-rated lunar spacecraft, which you'd need for lunar tourism, multiply that by about thirty and you'd be at the low end of a decent estimate. A lunar prospector capable of returning samples - just samples, not bulk materials - is going to be in the low billions, plus billions more to run. A full on linar mining infrastructure is, again, tens of billions. At least. Probably hundreds of billions.
There is just nothing on the moon that's worth that much. In particular, there's nothing there that wouldn't be orders of magnitude less expensive - and much less risky, which is important from an investor perspective - to simply mine or manufacture on earth. You can dig a lot of mines for ten billion dollars.
- avmich 9y agoThere are many questions to this line of thinking. Technology marches ahead, and cumulative advancements are large even in comparison to early 1990, when NASA conducted studies have shown possibility for manned return to the Moon for about a billion dollars. Similarly, goals to go there now include space tourism - something not heard of even in late 1990 - or mining the Moon water, which we know more about today than when Clementine flew. Even such a boring thing as oxygen can be marketable after offering it in quantity on a convenient orbit for many customers to take. When SpaceX demonstrated the expenses which it took to develop and fly Falcon-1 with supporting infrastructure, they beat the existing cost models by about a factor of four. Similarly here reaching the Moon can turn out easier than thought, and reasons to go there could become better than used to believe, as soon as some favorable conditions, like in 2002 when SpaceX was born, will be met.
- GlenTheMachine 9y agoRight, which is why the asteroid mining discussion is interesting — there are minerals in asteroids that have significant value, and if you could get the cost of access to space low enough, it might make economic sense to go get them. I'm skeptical that the economics of asteroid mining are going to close in the next fifty years, but there is at least a coherent argument for it. But the moon is just a big rock. As far as we know, there's nothing there with any intrinsic value - the only economic value of the moon is that it's out of earth's gravity well. So if you had a sufficiently robust asteroid mining operation, or something, then basing it or staging it on the moon might make some sense. But the moon would only have secondary value in that scenario, and you have to postulate some space resource with really high primary value in order to justify being on the moon.
- edf13 9y agoThe average cost of a deep sea mining rig can vary between $20mm and as much as $1 billion.... comparatively those costs may not seem too high in the not too distant future for moon mining. Edit: Source: https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/061115/how-do-average-costs-compare-different-types-oil-drilling-rigs.asp https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/061115/how-do-avera...